Hardwick Stove Co.

546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hardwick Stove Company and International Molders and Allied Workers Union , AFL-CIO, CLC. Case 10-CA-7418 June 10, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND ZAGORIA which the complaint was issued on October 1, 1968, involves allegations that the Respondent, Hardwick Stove Company, Cleveland, Tennessee, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq. On November 19 and 20, 1968, I conducted a hearing at Cleveland, Tennessee, at which all parties were represented. On December 16, 1968, briefs were received from the General Counsel and the Respondent, and have been considered. Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: On March 3, 1969, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, with a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,' conclusions, and recommendations. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby crders that the Respondent, Hardwick Stove Company, Cleveland, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 'The Respondent excepts to some of the Trial Examiner 's credibility resolutions . It is the Board's established policy , however, not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions as to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products. ;nc. 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. BRUCE HUNT, Trial Examiner : This proceeding, in which the charge and amended charges were filed on July 15, August 12 and 19, and September 26, 1968, and in FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE RESPONDENT Hardwich Stove Company, a Tennessee corporation, has its plant in Cleveland, Tennessee, where it manufactures stoves and ranges. The Respondent annually ships products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside Tennessee. There is no dispute, and I find, that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 11. THE UNION International Molders and Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, is a labor organization which admits to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues At times material, the Respondent had about 500 production and maintenance employees and about 52 supervisors. For a period of 3 decades prior to 1968, there was no union activity at the Respondent's plant.' On or about June 1, 1968, the Union began organizational activity there. Our issues are (1) whether, during July 1968, one supervisor, John Grubb, invalidly interrogated and threatened one employee, Fred Crumley, and (2) whether, during August, the Respondent invalidly discharged Charles Wilson, Jr., and Donald Wilson. B. The Conversation Between Grubb and Crumley Crumley , a witness for the General Counsel, testified on direct examination that about the middle of July 1968, at his place of work, Grubb asked him if he was for the Union, to which he responded affirmatively, and that then Grubb said that "probably if the union went in there that they would have a lay off, maybe a shut down, since the place was privately owned." On cross-examination, Crumley testified that he had been very friendly with Grubb, that he and Grubb had had a series of conversations about the Union, some of which he had initiated, that he may have previously volunteered to Grubb that he favored the Union, and that by mid-July the subject of the Union had become "general conversation" between them. Grubb's version differs. He testified that he never had a conversation with Crumley in which the Union was mentioned. According to Grubb, upon one occasion when Crumley was "kind of mad at 'The record discloses the absence of union activity for the period of 3 decades, but there is nothing in the record concerning such activity during the 1930s. 176 NLRB No. 65 HARDWICK STOVE CO. 547 the company," Crumley said to him that "the men could make the company" do as the men wished, to which Grubb responded that it would be hard to make a privately owned company, or any company, do anything that it did not wish to do, that Crumley then said that "the men could force the company," and that Grubb expressed agreement that "they could close us down." I was not favorably impressed by Grubb's version and I believe that he did have a conversation with Crumley in which the Union was mentioned. On the other hand, in view of Crumley's testimony on cross-examination, I am not satisfied that I can place the remarks of Crumley and Grubb to each other in proper context or that I can evaluate the likely impact, if any, of Grubb's total remarks during the conversation about the middle of July. In particular, I conclude that this isolated conversation has no probative value in determining the issues surrounding the discharges of Charles Wilson, Jr., and Donald Wilson, discussed below. C. The Discharge of Charles Wilson, Jr. The surname used in this section relates solely to Charles Wilson who is not related to the other dischargee. Wilson began work for the Respondent during 1946. He was laid off during 1950. He was rehired during 1953 and worked continuously until his suspension on August 12, 1969, which was followed by his discharge later that month. He was "a stove mounter" with the duty of putting insulation between the doors and liners of stoves as the products moved on a production line. Over the years, Wilson was never criticized on reprimanded about his work until after his suspension . During 1965 he was offered, but declined, a job as leadman which would have entailed the duty of "setting up the jobs and moving men from placement to where they were best qualified for the job." As recited, union activity began about June 1, 1968. During June, Wilson joined the Union and began to attend its meetings . He became a member of the Union's organizing committee , and during July be began to wear union badges, one of 1-1 /4 inches diameter reflecting his adherence to the Union and another of 1-7/ 16 inches diameter reflecting his membership on the committee. He wore the badges while at work and did not conceal them with clothing. Before discussing the events on August 12, certain earlier events must be recited. Production lines 1 and 2 are located on the plant's fourth floor, and employees who work on those lines on the first shift are supervised by Foreman Chester Perian. Lines 3 and 4 are located on the third floor. The plant was closed for a vacation period of 1 week ending on Saturday, July 6. Ralph L. Parker, the Respondent's production manager, testified that Wilson was transferred from Line 3 to the first shift on Line 2 on or about July 8 when operations were resumed. Parker testified further that for several weeks after the plant reopened, the production "rates dropped off considerably" and that he asked Perian and other supervisors "to tighten up and see if they" could increase production. The Respondent contends that decreased production was the result of the organizational activity . Perian testified that he believed that union activity and conversations among employees were the causes of the decrease in production, that he began to watch the employees more closely, that he observed groups of employees talking, but that he did not overhear anything because, upon his approach to a group , the employees would cease talking and resume work. In support of its contention that there was a decrease in production after the vacation period, the Respondent produced figures showing the hourly earnings of employees by workweeks. All employees on a particular production line are paid at piece rates, and all earn the same amounts. If the date of Wilson's transfer from Line 3 to Line 2 was July 8, as indicated by Parker's testimony, Wilson worked on the latter line for a period of 5 weeks before his suspension. The figures show that for that 5-week period the employees on Line 2 earned about $2.83 per hour in contrast to their earnings of about $3 hourly for a 5-week period preceding the shutdown of the plant. Thus, the figures reflect a decline in production on Line 2 during the period that Wilson worked on it. On the other hand, during a 5-week period immediately before the shutdown, when Wilson worked on Line 3, the employees on that line earned about $2.76 hourly and, therefore, Wilson's earnings increased after his transfer to Line 2. We turn to the events on August 12. There is no dispute that on that day and earlier, Wilson wore his union badges. After noon on August 12, Perian went to Wilson's place of work and sat behind him as Perian had done upon occasion during the past 2 weeks. Wilson turned from his work and looked back at Perian who was smiling , Wilson said to Perian that the latter was mistaken if he thought that he was scaring Wilson. Perian walked away, but returned to sit behind Wilson. Again Wilson turned to look at Perian who was smiling . Wilson said , "Smile, you might be on Candid Camera. The reference to Candid Camera was a reference to a television program that was on the air in recent years. Perian walked away, but returned. Again Perian sat behind Wilson. Wilson turned and noticed that Perian was smiling and chewing gum. Wilson commented, "The way you're chewing your gum, you must be awfully nervous." Perian walked away. Perian testified that he "wrote down" Wilson's remarks, and I infer that he did so upon leaving Wilson's place of work after each remark. About 3:20 p.m., 5 minutes before quitting time, Perian told Wilson to punch out and to go to the personnel office. Wilson refused to punch out, so Perian punched his timecard. Wilson went to the personnel office. Perian's acts in sitting behind Wilson and smiling were noticed by other employees. Wilson was not asked whether he or anyone laughed during the afternoon, but the other testimony is clear that there was laughter and it is also reasonable to infer that other employees, who heard Wilson's remarks to Perian, were prompted by the remarks to laugh.' 'These findings are based largely upon Wilson's testimony. Perian's version is that he was about 40 feet from Wilson when his attention was attracted by a very loud, unnatural laugh by Wilson, that he walked toward Wilson and inquired what was wrong, and that Wilson continued to work and did not respond. Somewhat later, according to Perian, he passed by Wilson's place of work three or four times, and upon each occasion Wilson gave a loud, unnatural laugh. Still later, so Perian testified, he walked by Wilson who said that Perian had been watching him for 2 weeks in an effort to find something wrong, to which Perian responded that he had not been watching Wilson more than any employee, following which Perian walked away. Still later, according to Perian, when he was about 25 fact from Wilson, the latter called out in a loud voice, "Smile, you might be on Candid Camera." Perian testified further that Wilson said that Perian did not scare him, that Perian could only "smile and bear it," that Perian should "[c]hew that chewing gum, you look awfully nervous," and that Perian "took it as long as [he] could," following which he reported to Production Manager Parker. Additional testimony by Perian establishes the inaccuracy of his version He acknowledged that he sat behind Wilson for a total of 15 to 20 minutes, and his testimony is that he sat in order to 548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Parker testified for the Respondent that he directed that Wilson be suspended and be told "that he would be laid off pending a complete investigation of the charges." If Parker gave such direction, it was not followed. When Wilson went to the personnel office, he spoke with Coleman Sawyer, the superintendent. Sawyer was not a witness, and Wilson testified without contradiction, and I find, that Sawyer said to him that he would be "let .. . off for a while," to which Wilson responded by asking the reason, that Sawyer replied, "pending an investigation," that Wilson asked, "what investigation," and that Sawyer answered, "You'll find out." Wilson testified further, and I find, that Sawyer refused to give him the necessary paper to enable him to draw unemployment compensation , saying that Wilson was not being laid off or discharged. On the following day, Wilson sought unemployment compensation and he took a form to Sawyer who refused to fill it out. Wilson said to Sawyer that, since he had not been discharged, he would return to work, but Sawyer refused to let him work "until after this investigation," the nature of which Sawyer again refused to disclose Several days later, Wilson sought reinstatement by talking with Norman Jordan, the personnel director. Jordan was not a witness . Wilson testified without contradiction, and I find, that Jordan refused to reinstate him "until after this investigation," the nature of which Jordan said that he did not know. During the period of Wilson' s suspension, the Respondent made inquiries, which if characterized as an investigation, concerning Wilson's conduct on August 12, but no inquiry was made of Wilson. On August 22, Wilson was discharged upon the ground that he had engaged in "[p]lanned and premeditated harrassment [sic] and belittling [of] foreman [Perian] in presence of other employees." Notice of the discharge was mailed to Wilson.' I find that Wilson was discharged because of his union membership and activity. He had worked for the Respondent for a total of 19 years. His efficiency is demonstrated by the absence of criticism during the years and by the Respondent's offer to make him a leadman during 1965. Soon after he began to wear union badges, however, he was watched by his foreman, Perian, and on August 12 Perian engaged in conduct that was intended to annoy Wilson. On that day Perian sat behind Wilson, smiling . Perian was not seeking to ascertain where there might be points of slowdown in production. Instead, he was seeking to irritate Wilson who was not behind in production. Perian was motivated, I am convinced, by the presence of the union badges on Wilson's clothing, particularly the badge that reflected membership on the organizing committee. Perian's efforts at annoyance listen "to what [Wilson] had to say" although minutes passed when Wilson continued at work and said nothing Additionally, Perian acknowledged that he had no reason to speak to Wilson concerning the latter's production because Wilson was up in his work On the other hand, according to Perian, Wilson's laughter and remarks, while not slowing Wilson's production, caused other employees to laugh and to slow down in their work, but Perian did not speak to the other employees because "Wilson kept [him] occupied" by talking. It is clear, however, that Wilson made few remarks to Perian and that Wilson made them because Perian sat behind him, smiling. I do not doubt that Perian's attention may have been attracted originally by Wilson's laughing, but laughter is not unusual among the employees 'Parker testified that upon advice of counsel Wilson was suspended, an investigation was made, and thereafter Wilson was discharged. The fact that the Respondent received legal advice does not alter my conclusions below concerning the Respondent's motive in discharging Wilson succeeded. Wilson's first reaction was to say that Perian was not frightening him. His other reactions were to say jokingly, "Smile, you might be on Candid Camera," and to say, "The way you're chewing your gum, you must be awfully nervous." Surely, there were laughs by employees who heard. But the fault was Perian's. He had sought to provoke conduct by Wilson that would serve as a pretext for discharge. Moreover, the use of the pretext after Wilson' s suspension is reflected by Wilson's inability to learn from Sawyer and Jordan why he had been suspended and by the Respondent's failure to seek Wilson's version of the events on August 12. I find that Wilson' s suspension and discharge violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. D. The Discharge of Donald Wilson The use of the surname in this section is a reference to Donald Wilson. He began work for the Respondent during 1956. Ten years later, he became a leadman in training to become a supervisor, and he continued as a leadman until the date of his discharge, August 5, 1968. During May 1968, R. B. Pruiett, a foreman, took a vacation of 1 week, and during that period Wilson performed some of Pruiett's functions. Subsequently, three individuals, the Respondent's president, Reeves Brown, the plant superintendent, Coleman Sawyer, and the assistant superintendent, Ralph Stoffel, all said to Wilson that he had done "a good job" and that they "appreciated it." About July 12, 1968, Wilson signed a union card and began to attend union meetings regularly. He also became a member of the organizing committee. On July 29, Pruiett began another vacation of l week, and again Wilson was assigned some of Pruiett's duties. On July 30, when Wilson came to work, he began wearing on his clothing two union badges of the types described above, one reflecting his adherence to the Union and another reflecting his membership on the Union's committee. On the same day, Wilson expressed to General Foreman John Swafford his dissatisfaction with his job as leadman and with the heavy workload that he had to carry during Pruiett's vacation. Wilson had told Swafford earlier of his dissatisfaction with the job of leadman because, in his view, the job was not of benefit to him. On July 30, Wilson was outspoken in telling Swafford that he did not want to continue as a leadman, partly because of inadequate compensation, and also that he was being overworked while Pruiett was on vacation. There is a conflict in the testimony of Wilson and Swafford concerning the former's choice of words in expressing himself, but the conflict need not be detailed and resolved. It suffices to find that, whichever version represents the truth, or whether portions of each version represent it, Wilson did not use words that are uncommon among employees and supervisors in a factory.' On August 5, Pruiett returned to work Swafford called the employees in the department together and announced that they should take future orders from Pruiett and himself, not from Wilson.' At that time, Wilson was 'I was not favorably impressed by Swafford's denial that Wilson was wearing union badges at the time of their conversation. Moreover, there is uncontradicted testimony by Wilson that he was wearing the badges earlier that day when he was assigned additional duties by Plant Superintendent Sawyer `This finding is based largely upon Wilson's testimony. On the other hand, Swafford testified emphatically that he did not mention Wilson's name. Swafford's testimony is contradicted by that of Pruiett, also a HARDWICK STOVE CO. 549 wearing his union badges in plain view on his clothing, as he had done since reporting for work on July 30. Upon the completion of Swafford's remarks, Wilson began working with other employees in moving enamel, but within 20 minutes Pruiett told Wilson to assist him by performing certain work that Wilson had performed during Pruiett's vacation. During the afternoon of that day, Wilson was discharged. Before the details are recited, it is necessary to discuss certain practices in the plant relating to the employees' lunch periods. One period is from 11 to 11:30 a.m. A second period is from 11:30 to noon. There is conflicting testimony concerning whether each employee was assigned a particular period, but it suffices to find that, by assignment or not, each employee generally followed the routine of observing a particular period. On the other hand, there were occasions when an employee would vary his lunch period by "trading periods" with another employee. The Respondent did not object to such trades so long as there was no interruption in the normal work at the factory. Pruiett's lunch period was 11:30 to noon; Wilson's was a half hour earlier except that, during Pruiett's vacations, Wilson had lunch between 11:30 and noon. On August 5, Wilson took the 11:30 to noon lunch period, having traded with Larry Cross, a college student who was employed during the summer. Cross could not operate a vehicle called a tow motor or forklift, and there was no employee on duty during that lunch period who could operate one. According to Pruiett, on August 5, he told Wilson to take the l l to 11:30 lunch period, but Wilson did not answer, and later, at about 11:40 two trucks of another employer arrived at the plant, one containing enamel and the other containing the same product plus a die that weighed about a ton. Pruiett testified further that he looked for Wilson in order to direct Wilson to use a forklift and take the die to its proper place in the plant, that he learned from Cross that the two employees had traded lunch periods, that the drivers of the trucks used a jack truck to remove the die from the vehicle and to place it on the dock, that the die's position on the dock interferred with the unloading of the enamel, and that the die was not removed from the dock until Archie Freeman, an employee who could operate a forklift, returned to work at noon after having eaten his lunch.' Finally, Pruiett testified that he recommended to Personnel Director Jordan that Wilson be discharged for having breached Pruiett's instruction earlier that day that Wilson take the 11 to 11:30 lunch period.' Pruiett's testimony is contradicted in material respects by that of Wilson. According to Wilson, Pruiett did not tell him to take the l l to 11:30 lunch period on August 5, but instead asked whether Wilson intended to take that period, to which Wilson replied that he would do so if he did not trade with another employee. I credit this testimony by Wilson. It impresses me as the much more likely version of the remarks between Pruiett and him witness for the Respondent . According to Pruiett, Swafford "called all the boys together and told them that Don [Wilson] was taken out as a lead man. He would be just one of the regular boys from there on out. They could take all their orders from me ... " •Pruiett is an hourly paid supervisor who punches a timeclock . Although he can operate a forklift, he is not permitted to do so except during his working hours. 'Pruiett also testified that, in recommending Wilson's discharge, he was motiviated additionally by Swafford's recital to him of Wilson 's remarks upon the occasion when Wilson expressed to Swafford dissatisfaction with the job of leadman . It does not appear, however, that Pruiett told Jordan of this additional alleged motivation. concerning the lunch period. Moreover, Pruiett was unable to recall any other instance when he had reminded Wilson of a lunch period for the latter. Next, Wilson and Pruiett were at work during the period that Pruett testified Wilson should have been at lunch. Wilson credibly testified that during that period Pruiett stopped at Wilson's place of work while Wilson "was writing up a ticket," but did not speak to Wilson. On the other hand, Pruiett testified that he was seated at his desk during that period, engrossed in paperwork, and that he did not notice any employee at work. According to Pruiett, he is "practically blind" in one eye and Wilson "could have been all around" him without his having noticed Wilson because of the defect in sight plus the concentration upon his work. Again I credit Wilson, and find that Pruiett was aware that Wilson was at work between 11:00 and 11:30 on August 5. Next, Pruiett's conduct toward Wilson following lunch on that day was not the conduct of a foreman who had found fault in a capable employee of 12 years' seniority. Wilson testified without contradiction that he was never told that there had been a need for a forklift operator while he was having lunch on August 5. He testified also that from about 2:30 to 3:20 p.m., during that afternoon he worked with Pruiett, and it is clear from the testimony of each of them that Pruiett said nothing to Wilson about an alleged dereliction of duty by the latter. At about 3:20 p.m., Pruiett received a telephone call, following which he and Wilson went to the personnel office. Jordan, the personnel director, and Parker, the production manager, were awaiting Wilson. Parker directed Pruiett to return to work, following which Jordan said to Wilson that the latter was discharged. Wilson asked why, and Jordan replied, "insubordination." Wilson asked for clarification, and Jordan said that Wilson had disregarded a specific lunch period that had been assigned to him. Wilson protested, but Jordan terminated the conversation by saying that he would "rather not discuss that."' We turn to the alleged seriousness of Wilson's having traded a lunch period with Cross so that a forklift operator was not at work in the department between 11:30 and noon . Parker testified that dies are "very seldom" delivered to the plant during lunch periods. Wilson was aware that Cross could not operate a forklift, but he testified that, in trading the lunch period with Cross, he gave "no thought" to the possibility that a forklift might be needed between 11:30 and noon. Wilson's lack of thought was not unusual. During the preceding week when Pruiett had been on vacation, Freeman twice took the same lunch period as Wilson, leaving no one on duty in the department who could operate a forklift. Freeman used the 11 to 11:30 period three times that week and the later period twice, and Cross did the same, but only once did they simultaneously take the same period. Cross testified that he was not assigned a particular lunch period prior to Wilson's discharge and that upon occasion he traded lunch periods without obtaining permission from a supervisor. Freeman testified that he was not assigned a particular lunch period and that he had occasionally traded periods without permission or criticism.' The 'The findings concerning the conversation in the personnel office are based upon Wilson's uncontradicted testimony 'Freeman is a young man of 22 years who did not complete grammar school. He was frightened when on the witness stand I regard as credible his negative answer to the last question asked of him , i.e., whether anyone ever told him that there should be someone capable of operating the forklift at all times in the enamel department. 550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent called General Foreman Swafford as a witness in an effort to contradict Cross and Freeman and to explain how it had happened that , upon two occasions during the week before Wilson's discharge, Freeman had taken the same lunch period as Wilson leaving no one in the department to operate the forklift during that period. Swafford testified that during that week he gave Cross and Freeman permission to trade lunch periods . Swafford gave no details of his alleged conversation with Freeman, and it is clear from Cross' testimony that the incident related by Swafford occurred after Wilson's discharge when Cross' usual lunch period had been fixed at 11:00 to 11:30 and Cross wanted to take the later period. I conclude that Freeman varied his lunch periods during the week in question without permission and without thought that a need might arise for a forklift operator when he and Wilson were at lunch simultaneously. It is appropriate, however, to continue the recital of Swafford's testimony. When he was first asked why he gave permission to Cross and Freeman to trade lunch periods during the week before Wilson's discharge, leaving no one to operate the forklift upon two occasions when Freeman and Wilson were at lunch at the same time, he answered that he was on hand to operate the forklift. It was pointed out to him that he too had taken the same lunch period on those occasions. He then offered the- explanation that he had believed that Cross, who was at work upon those occasions, could operate a forklift . There was no basis for such belief because Swafford acknowledged that he had known little about Cross , a temporary employee during the summer . It is more likely, I believe, that if Swafford ever gave Cross and another employee permission to trade lunch periods, leaving no one on hand to operate a forklift if a need should arise, Swafford did so without thought of such a possibility. I find that the Respondent discharged Wilson because of his union membership and activities. The defense is that Wilson had been insubordinate in not following Pruiett's alleged direction to take the first lunch period on August 5. 1 have found, however, that Pruiett did not so direct Wilson . With respect to the Respondent 's contention that two trucks arrived at the dock for unloading at about 11:40 a.m., Pruiett was the only witness to testify that the trucks came, and in some instances I have found his testimony to have been unreliable . Moreover, if the trucks did arrive at the time related by Pruiett, the result was not so serious as to warrant Wilson 's discharge for having traded a lunch period with Cross . Production Manager Parker acknowledged that an employee 's initial offense does not automatically result in discharge and he listed as serious offenses warranting prompt dismissal (a) fighting, (b) stealing, and (c) destruction of company property. Finally, certain details surrounding the discharge are inconsistent with a belief on the part of Pruiett and Jordan that Wilson, a capable employee for 12 years, had been so derelict in duty as to be disciplined by discharge. No one told Wilson that there had been a need for a forklift operator while he had been at lunch; indeed Pruiett said nothing at all to Wilson about a dereliction in duty although the two men worked together after the alleged dereliction . Too, when Jordan discharged Wilson, Jordan refused to discuss the matter other than to give a bare reason . I conclude that the discharge violated Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall recommend that the Respondent offer Charles Wilson, Jr. and Donald Wilson immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions (Chase National Bank, 65 NLRB 827), without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges, and that the Respondent make each of them whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him , by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned from the date of the discrimination (in one instance, the date of the suspension; in the other, the date of the discharge) to the date of a proper offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings (Crossett Lumber Co., 8 NLRB 440, 497 - 498) during said period, the payment to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established in N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Co, Inc., 344 U.S. 344, with interest at 6 percent per annum , Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 331 F.2d 720 (C.A. 6).10 I shall recommend also that the Respondent preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, upon request, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay and the right to reinstatement under the terms of these Recommendations. In view of the nature of the Respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose and tendency, I find that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the course of the Respondent's conduct in the past. N.L.R.B. v. Express Publishing Co.. 312 U.S. 426, 437. This is particularly true because the discharge of employees for union membership and activity, striking as it does at their means of livelihood, "goes to the very heart of the Act," N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536, (C.A. 4). In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, I shall recommend further that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in said section. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case , I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By discouraging membership in a labor organization through discrimination in employment , and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. "I have not included the usual provision concerning offers of reinstatement to discruninatees upon thew discharge from the Armed Forces because I think that such provision would be unrealistic in view of the ages of Charles and Donald Wilson. HARDWICK STOVE CO. 551 RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby recommend that the Respondent, Hardwick Stove Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in International Molders and Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by suspending or discharging any of its employees because of their union or concerted activities, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Charles Wilson, Jr., and Donald Wilson immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges, and make each of them whole, in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" section of this Decision. (b) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents all payroll and other records, as set forth in said "Remedy" section. (c) Post, in conspicuous places, at its plant, including all places where notices to employees customarily are posted, copies of the notice attached hereto as Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be prepared by the Respondent on forms furnished by the Regional Director for Region 10, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by it promptly and maintained by it for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any material. (d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.': IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Dated By NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT suspend or discharge any of our employees because they join or engage in activities on behalf of International Molders and Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights that you have under the National Labor Relations Act to join a union of your own choice and to engage in union activities, or not to join a union and not to engage in such activities. WE WILL offer Charles Wilson, Jr. and Donald Wilson immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs, or equivalent ones, and pay them backpay to cover the earnings they lost because we discharged them. All our employees are free to become or remain members of International Molders and Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, or any other labor organization. HARDWICK STOVE COMPANY (Employer) " In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice . In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 730 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone 404-526-5741.